Burning Questions: Why Do DMs Limit Official WOTC Material?

In today’s Burning Question we discuss: In D&D, why do DMs limit spells, feats, races, books, etc. when they have been play-tested by Wizards of the Coast?

View attachment 102414
​

Photo by Mark Duffel on Unsplash
​

The Short Answer

A DM (Dungeon Master) is well within their right to decide which options are available at their table, regardless of the source of that material. After all the DM is responsible for the integrity of the game experience and may deem some material inappropriate or unbalanced.

Digging Deeper

This may seem a bit unfair to those who have paid for a product and expect to be able to use that product anywhere they go. However, the idea of limiting the material available to players is not without precedent. Currently the D&D Adventurers’ League has a PHB +1 rule, meaning a player can use the Player’s Handbook and one other source for their character. I believe this may be increasing soon. Previous incarnations of D&D organized play would use certs and introduce content a little at a time. There is a logic to setting limits. A DM can only know so many things and it is easy to get overwhelmed with a system like D&D or Pathfinder, where the amount of add-on content is enormous and occasionally deeply themed.

Appropriate Thematics

When creating a world to play D&D in, or more specifically to run D&D (or other games) in, a DM/GM will often choose a theme for the world. It may only apply to that specific campaign or it may apply to the entire world, but the theme sets expectations for the kinds of play experiences players may run into. Many DM’s, including myself, try and create a zeitgeist, a lived in feel to the world and this may well exclude certain types of character options.

Let’s just take a few examples from the PHB itself and show how they might not be appropriate for every campaign.

• The Gnome. In general played as a cutesy and clever race, akin to dwarves but more gem obsessed. They work fine on Faerun, but if you were porting gnomes to say historical renaissance Holy Roman Empire, would they work? Maybe not. .
• Eldritch Knight. In a world where knights do not exist or magic is inherently evil, warriors may not even think of learning sorcery.
• Oath of the Ancients. Works great in a world where Fey and ancient forests are prominent. Works somewhat less well in desert or ice settings and campaigns.

Of course any of these could be made more thematic with a little work, but as mentioned the DM already has a lot of work to do. An overabundance of options mean keeping track of more abilities and their potential impact on both the setting and other party members. Even having the players keep track of the information themselves does not necessarily ease that burden. A more limited scope can work better for one shots and short campaigns. Where as wildly varying characters and character abilities may upset the verisimilitude of that style of game or possibly be game breaking.

Out of Balance

Of course just because WoTC tested a product does not make it right for every campaign. Balancing mechanics across an entire game can be a daunting task. Some might say an impossible one. And typically as a design team (who might have new members added) tinkers with mechanics and new options, a degree of power creep inevitably sneaks in.

Even a balanced rule can cause issues. Take for instance Healing Spirit from Xanathar’s Guide. There is a great deal of debate over whether Healing Spirit should be allowed in a game or not. Many players do not like its downsides. Certainly more than a few players enjoy the potential upside as well, but Healing Spirit is not a slam dunk or no-brainer for a DM.

In general, a DM has a high degree of latitude when creating a setting or planning a campaign. Ideally they will discuss their motives with players and come to the best compromise.

This article was contributed by Sean Hillman (SMHWorlds) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!

 

[oreofox]

I "ban" things for the stated Appropriate Thematics. However, what I ban is a small quantity. I have the mentality that variety is a good thing. My setting is heavily homebrewed, and I have been working on it for 15 years now (Oct 2003). Some might say I allow too much. I have 18 races with a total of 40 subraces among them. I don't include every official class archetype in the various published materials, though I do have a number of homebrewed archetypes. Of the official races and classes, I only outright ban one of each: human and warlock. Humans don't fit my world (they are a near extinct "enemy race" that conquered and oppressed an entire continent, and then were toppled by the other races and slaughtered to almost extinction, and any found are either killed on sight or enslaved), and I just don't care for the warlock thematically, so I merged warlock spells into the sorcerer spell list.

It isn't often a player wants to play something that isn't already included. And apparently I am doing something right as I have had 4 repeat players in my various attempts at running a campaign over the last 4-5 years (half the players would end up not showing up, usually after having to take a hiatus due to holidays or work scheduling, whereas the 4 I mentioned would show up after the hiatus only for me to have to cancel because the other players stopped showing. Also should mention that only 2 of those 4 players were present for those campaigns, so I handpicked them all to join this campaign I am running presently).

If a DM wants to not include something because it doesn't fit the world, I have no problem with that. If they want to not include something because of bad experiences previously, it makes me sad that someone crapped on a thing so hard it soured the DM forevermore, but I can understand.

 

[Panda-s1]

Okay, quick aside: I'm always baffled at this "DM must compete with the Players" mentality some people have. Like obviously the DM is supposed to challenge the players, but bear with me here. I find the idea that a player can be "overpowered" just a little silly given the nature of D&D. This isn't like Magic where one player can outright win almost every game because they have the one really good deck in their game store; like a lot of D&D beginner text says there is no "winner" in this game, it's not meant to be competitive. Now clearly someone can make an overpowered character, but I'd be more worried if it made one player outshine everyone else than "Oh no, he was able to get past an encounter (that was explicitly designed to be won) faster than usual. That extremely situational spell he used in a clever manner should be banned from my game". Really?

Also inb4 some smartass tries to lecture me on ye olden days of (A)D&D when DM was the referee and the game said they were the antagonist or w/e 1) roleplaying games (D&D included) have evolved greatly since then and 2) that doesn't even counter what I said as the early D&D game was still explicitly designed so that a group of adventurers who played carefully could actually get to the end of a dungeon and defeat the boss.

 

[Umbran]

Okay that's cute, but you do allow DMs to feature snow leopard animals without that necessarily meaning snow leopard people?

It isn't cute. It is a pretty relevant response to an overstated position.

The internet tends to do that. We have some players that lean too far in asserting what should be allowed at a particular game. So obviously, the alternative is to show how even the act of asking is outright rude and unreasonable! As if the best response to an extreme position is another extreme position.

I don't see how merely *asking* should ever be considered rude, or unreasonable. Failing to take no as an answer is rude and unreasonable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Also inb4 some smartass tries to lecture me on ye olden days of (A)D&D when DM was the referee and the game said they were the antagonist or w/e 1) roleplaying games (D&D included) have evolved greatly since then and 2) that doesn't even counter what I said as the early D&D game was still explicitly designed so that a group of adventurers who played carefully could actually get to the end of a dungeon and defeat the boss.

If someone said that, they'd be wrong because the Gary was pretty explicit in the book from at least 1979 that it is NOT a competition. Just because the DM was defined as the referee doesn't imply it's DM vs the players. Despite fan protests, referees aren't actually against any of the teams in direct competition. The DM (referee) is there to be fair and interpret the rules, hence why DMs were called referees. Neither be against the players, nor go to great lengths to favor them either. The only time it was advised to be in favor of the players is if there was just incredibly bad luck with dice rolls and nothing to do with their actions.

 

[DWChancellor]

One thing no one has mentioned, is some WotC content gets banned because it really really annoys a particular player.

Case in point, Dragonborn are not in my homebrew b/c one of my players hates them. It was an easy give that cost me nothing and made a player happy. Just because something is in a book doesn't mean it has to come out on the table.

 

[Sacrosanct]

To the point, I didn't even ban Method 9 from Unearthed Arcana, nor dart specialization. So it's fair to say that the things I do ban are thematic in purpose. Not a fan of the implications that DMs who ban thing are cowards, or that if a player doesn't get to play something in a core book then it's unfair to them that's been bantered around here though. You don't know what's in the DM's mind, making assumptions like that is pretty bad.

 

[Dualazi]

Okay, quick aside: I'm always baffled at this "DM must compete with the Players" mentality some people have. Like obviously the DM is supposed to challenge the players, but bear with me here. I find the idea that a player can be "overpowered" just a little silly given the nature of D&D. This isn't like Magic where one player can outright win almost every game because they have the one really good deck in their game store; like a lot of D&D beginner text says there is no "winner" in this game, it's not meant to be competitive. Now clearly someone can make an overpowered character, but I'd be more worried if it made one player outshine everyone else than "Oh no, he was able to get past an encounter (that was explicitly designed to be won) faster than usual. That extremely situational spell he used in a clever manner should be banned from my game". Really?

I like that you simultaneously assert that the DM should challenge the players, then also at the end malign the DM for being irritated at the inability to challenge due to an OP character.

First off, if not a direct competitor, the DM is still a player in that he gets to control the monsters and use their abilities in combat with players, so if a character is able to routinely smash through encounters before the DM can even play them, then it's quite possible to have this be detrimental to the DM's enjoyment

Secondly, and more importantly, you yourself just woke up to the real issue here: intra-party balance. In my experience with the game the rogue doesn't give a crap how easily the wizard bypassed all the traps with one spell, because that's his area of expertise. Most players don't mind this in moderation, but when your character is completely eclipsed by another at every turn it quickly becomes stale. It was never about "winning", as you say, it's about communal enjoyment from both storytelling aspects and mechanical team-play. When your character is overridden in one or both categories things get unfun really fast.

(that was explicitly designed to be won)

On a re-read, I want to take a moment to specifically call this out as well. I can't speak to your tastes, and maybe the games you enjoy playing have an assumption of player success. Mine do not, and having read some of the opinions here on this forum, I don't think I'm an isolated case in this. If you assume that every encounter is just window dressing with an assured victor awaiting, then yes, you might not care about balance. Others, for whom a serious encounter might be campaign-ending, DO care about such things.

Also inb4 some smartass tries to lecture me on ye olden days of (A)D&D when DM was the referee and the game said they were the antagonist or w/e 1) roleplaying games (D&D included) have evolved greatly since then and 2) that doesn't even counter what I said as the early D&D game was still explicitly designed so that a group of adventurers who played carefully could actually get to the end of a dungeon and defeat the boss.

I'd like to point out that this isn't 4chan, "inb4" isn't really necessary and I doubt you were so pressed for time that you couldn't spell it out. You follow this with a bunch of non-arguments; whether the DM is antagonistic or not really has nothing to do with splat, as early editions had that as well. Furthermore, whether the DM is antagonistic or not has not 'evolved' in any way shape or form, people who want to play that way can and still do, and there's little consensus that the newer mindsets are inherently better. Then of course you last sentence refutes your own point again. "Carefully". That word is important, because it acknowledge that it takes skill to get through the dungeon and defeat the boss. When players can just autopilot through encounters and puzzles because of broken, poorly-tested options then there's no need to be careful.

For my part campaign flavor is still the most pressing issue when banning content (usually races or select classes), but I find the idea of maligning legitimate mechanical concerns because you have not seen or experienced its effects to be inane.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I will ban things that I find silly, or cat/dog/pig people races, aka the furries. I would allow a dragonborn or tiefling in my Greyhawk game but expect to be a one off freakshow who must have been shot though some kind of vortex from another plane. The player should expect a PC who looks like demon or dragon to be treated as such.

 

[epithet]

...
Just because WotC have published something doesn't mean the DM is obligated to allow it. No - honest to god! (And worse, the DM is certainly not obligated to allow it because someone spent money on it. It is only in the feverish dreams of the bean counters of WotC that "but I paid for it" counts as a reasonable argument to include an incongrous element.)
...

There seems to be a lot of DM entitlement here in this thread.

Look, there's no doubt--as a DM, the world is yours. There must be a final arbiter of rules and lore, and the DM is unquestionably that person. However, the game belongs to the group. It is completely legitimate to limit the options presented in the published rules, whether WotC or 3rd party, but for the most part that should be a group choice, not based on individual fiat.

If you're playing in a low-magic campaign, there need to be some limitations put in place. I think we all would agree that the DM is responsible for deciding on those limitations, taking reasonable input from the players. The choice to play in a low-magic campaign, however, is made by the group collectively, not by one of its participants. Even if it is just a matter of the DM saying "hey, this is what I have in mind for the campaign setting" and the players responding "cool," it is still a group decision and should be treated as such.

When it comes to the game rules, whether core or optional, choices should be made by consensus. If you have four or five players who want to play on a grid and use the related rules like flanking, but the DM wants to do all the combat as a "theater of the mind" narrative, well... suck it up, buttercup. If you can't run combat the way your players want to run it, you might need to let someone else DM.

You can get away with being a tyrant for a while, to be honest. Like a tank-spec'd character in an MMORPG, a DM is in demand and can force his will upon the players (who should be grateful just to have someone to run the game for them, am I right?) You can "ban" certain spells, classes, races, combat rules, or whatever... just based on your own ego and the fact that you don't like them. If all you want to do is run one-shots or campaigns that only span a few levels before moving on to something else, then you can probably do that crap forever. If you want to run a campaign for years, covering 1- 20 and even setting up the next campaign in the same world with the same players, then having genuine buy-in from your players is essential. You don't want players to be thinking "I guess we can't have tabaxi characters, because the DM thinks they're dumb."

That said, I've certainly had a great time in games that were a house rule and homebrew hodge podge of rules and systems taken from different games and stitched together into a Frankenstein's monster of a game, where things could be changed on the fly based on what seemed to working or not. The key is that we all knew what we were getting into, and we had confidence that the DM was considering our input on an ongoing basis. Even so, the campaign wasn't one that persisted for years across a broad level range and we moved on to something more stable and accessible.

D&D 5e practically requires limitation, and will especially demand it once this Magic the Gathering setting book is released. In any campaign I've ever run, a wee Babar character stomping into town trumpeting and flapping its ears would cause panic as the townsfolk realised they were being confronted with the most mage-warped and hideous ogre anyone had ever heard of. No matter what your setting (other than perhaps the Forgotten Realms,) there will be things described in the published rulebooks that just don't belong in the world. Since it is the DM's responsibility to rationalise everything in the world into some kind of coherent setting (again, unless you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, in which case "whatever, man" is the assumed approach) it is perfectly legitimate for the DM to say, after hearing the "pitch" for a weird published race, "Sorry, your character sounds great and all, but I just can't think of a way to fit her into the world. There just aren't elephant people in this setting."

Similarly, the game has published rules that offer different, mutually exclusive ways to approach certain things. There are options for everything from stat generation to initiative, and add-ons for a handful of things like insanity and honor. No one D&D group will use all of the options published, even in just the core books. Unlike the options that determine the world and setting, however, these choices shouldn't be made by fiat. In my primary current campaign, for example, I didn't want to deal with multiclassing. I presented an argument against multiclassing to the players along with a minor expansion in feat availability to cover the loss of flexibility in character development. Everyone agreed. If there had been players who really wanted to multiclass, and the group as a whole wanted to keep the rule in place, then I would have absolutely run the game that the players wanted to play.

I think too often DMs get caught up in the notion of "it's my campaign, I can do whatever I want!" Their first impulse is to start looking for crap to "ban" in their campaign, just because they can. Others get caught up in the fanaticism of the "rules as written" orthodoxy. I have little patience or sympathy for either extreme.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There seems to be a lot of DM entitlement here in this thread.

Look, there's no doubt--as a DM, the world is yours. There must be a final arbiter of rules and lore, and the DM is unquestionably that person. However, the game belongs to the group. It is completely legitimate to limit the options presented in the published rules, whether WotC or 3rd party, but for the most part that should be a group choice, not based on individual fiat.

If you're playing in a low-magic campaign, there need to be some limitations put in place. I think we all would agree that the DM is responsible for deciding on those limitations, taking reasonable input from the players. The choice to play in a low-magic campaign, however, is made by the group collectively, not by one of its participants. Even if it is just a matter of the DM saying "hey, this is what I have in mind for the campaign setting" and the players responding "cool," it is still a group decision and should be treated as such.

When it comes to the game rules, whether core or optional, choices should be made by consensus. If you have four or five players who want to play on a grid and use the related rules like flanking, but the DM wants to do all the combat as a "theater of the mind" narrative, well... suck it up, buttercup. If you can't run combat the way your players want to run it, you might need to let someone else DM.

You can get away with being a tyrant for a while, to be honest. Like a tank-spec'd character in an MMORPG, a DM is in demand and can force his will upon the players (who should be grateful just to have someone to run the game for them, am I right?) You can "ban" certain spells, classes, races, combat rules, or whatever... just based on your own ego and the fact that you don't like them. If all you want to do is run one-shots or campaigns that only span a few levels before moving on to something else, then you can probably do that crap forever. If you want to run a campaign for years, covering 1- 20 and even setting up the next campaign in the same world with the same players, then having genuine buy-in from your players is essential. You don't want players to be thinking "I guess we can't have tabaxi characters, because the DM thinks they're dumb."
.

I don't know about DM entitlement, but your post sure screams of player entitlement. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you pretty strongly. The bottom line is that the DM puts in a LOT more work than the players. The trade off for that is that the players play in the DM's world, how the DM wants it. I will never change something of my game world because the players voted and wanted it differently. Sorry, but the simple answer is that if you as a player don't like it, then feel free to find another group or better yet, DM yourself. I'd LOVE to play in your game with your rules every once in a while so I can get a break.

Your attitude that the DM is somehow a bad person by enforcing their rules in their own game world needs to die in fire. You are not entitled to change how a DM runs their game. End stop. Running a game how I want to run my world helps me as a DM be consistent for the players, because I know how the world works. Changing that via player whim is going to have a major impact on that consistency because it's much harder to remember everything, and will introduce incompatibilities later on down the road. That in no way makes me a tyrant.

I think too often DMs get caught up in the notion of "it's my campaign, I can do whatever I want!" Their first impulse is to start looking for crap to "ban" in their campaign, just because they can.

This myth that DMs just look for things to ban needs to die in fire as well. Just look at the responses in this thread. That's not what's happening. There is a reason why DMs ban things, and it's not just because they feel like it with no justification like entitled attitudes like yours is implying.


*Edit* "Player choice" in the context you're talking about begins and ends when the player chooses to join the campaign. After that, after the player agrees to play in the DM's world, then that player agrees to play in the DM's world how the DM runs it, and does not have any entitlement to change how the DM runs his or her world. If the player doesn't agree, they can always find another group or DM themselves.